The Twinkie, it turns out, was introduced way back in 1930. In our memories, however, the iconic snack will forever be identified with the 1950s, when Hostess popularized the brand by sponsoring The Howdy Doody Show. And the demise of Hostess has unleashed a wave of baby boomer nostalgia for a seemingly more innocent time.

Needless to say, it wasnt really innocent. But the 50s  the Twinkie Era  do offer lessons that remain relevant in the 21st century. Above all, the success of the postwar American economy demonstrates that, contrary to todays conservative orthodoxy, you can have prosperity without demeaning workers and coddling the rich.

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing lower tax rates as a guiding principle.

Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, thats right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today.

What a bunch of bung from Krugman. Add todays global economy, cheap labor in China, India and elsewhere and technological advances that make it possible for companies to utilize cheap labor overseas, we don’t have the same market.

Do we want job opportunities in the US or just to tear down the rich by making US companies uncompetitive so all the libs can feel better that life is more fair.

Note to all rich and mildly successful people....start living frugally so you can squirrel away what cash and assets you have now. It’s going to get a heck of a lot worse before it gets better.

Some of the comments below his article are spot on. Back in the 1950s, companies, capital and individuals that were overtaxed had nowhere to go and so they stayed in the U.S. and paid higher penalties. Today, they can leave and leave they will.

This is really too easy to answer. In the 1950's the state state of communications and the shipping industry dictated domestic production. Thus the government could levy rediculous taxes and get away with it.

Today, manufacturers have options! Thus, the U.S. should be competitive for manufacturing jobs.

And Krugman bills himself as an economist when he is nothing more than a propaganda shill for the left-wing.

Above all, the success of the postwar American economy demonstrates that, contrary to todays conservative orthodoxy, you can have prosperity without demeaning workers and coddling the rich.

What? Like Hostess in 2012? Hostess has been in bankruptcy trying to survive for several years. They have been held hostage by Unions and government regulations as their market has shrunk. How does that have anything to do with prosperity, demeaning workers or coddling the rich? SQUIRL!!!!

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing lower tax rates as a guiding principle.

Paul, ever hear of the Laffer Curve? Well, you can't simply include the income tax anymore when you figure tax rates. You know why? Because the tax code thingy has so many tentacles and embedded taxes that rob folks of expendable income, that you can't even tell what the masses are paying as a percentage. Liberal economists in Berkley have cited that the PODR (point of diminishing returns) on the Laffer Curver is about 33% (at the consumer level).

Let's see Krugman put together a piece using this same approach and logic for the failure of all these green energy companies.

"Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, thats right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today."

Psst... somebody should tell the economic reactionary, Mr. Krugman, that it's not 1950 anymore, and we kinda, sorta have immense competition from countries like China and India that we didn't have before...

9
posted on 11/19/2012 8:37:26 AM PST
by Qbert
("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)

In the 50s the USA was benefitting from being the only developed country not destroyed by the war. Also, while the tax rares were “hat high, no one paid that because of loopholes in the tax laws. Those conditions don’t exist today.

Economist William Hauser’s (Hauser’s law)study has shown that federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of the highest marginal tax rate. Higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy will not lead to higher tax revenues as the GDP will shrink accordingly. Krugman should also note that an economic boom was started in the 1960s when JFK lowered all marginal tax rates including those paid by the richest Americans.

Krugman’s nostalga for the 1950’s is amusing and feeble in it’s comparisons.

In the 1950s, women moved back into the home to make way for men returning from war. African American poverty was far more intense than today. Factory jobs for men with a high school diploma were plentiful because America was the world’s only manufacturing colossus - Europe and Japan were digging out of the rubble and lining up to purchase American durable goods.

In the 1950’s, twenty Americans worked for every one recipient of social security. Many unions didn’t admit black members. There were not 12 million illegal immigrants forcing wages for the working poor ever lower, as there are today. There were no women or minorities at Paul Krugman’s Princeton.

And higher tax rates were NOT a cause of prosperity for working class people - available jobs were!

In the 1950s, the baby boomers were NOT retiring. America didn’t have national debt overtaking GDP. Half the population was not receiving government checks. Medicare was not soaking up the nation’s prosperity on its path to insolvency. States like Illinois and California were not burdened with hundreds of billions in unfunded pension liabilities. There weren’t laws and agencies like OSHA, or living wages laws, or mandatory overtime, Cobra - all of which minimize the need for private sector unions today.

Paul Krugman’s knowledge of history is as feeble and his application of economics. He is an leftist idealogue. Nothing more.

Libtards keep saying that higher taxes and strong unions were the cause of economic growth. How do they know? The actual causes of economic growth are:

1) increases in innovation 2) anticipation of changes in demand by businessmen 3) increasing technological advances 4) increasing productivity of labor 5) increasing capital accumulation 6) increasing supply of capital goods 7) increasing efficiency of production 8) increasing amount of savings and investment 9) increased ability to cut costs of production by businessmen 10) increased velocity of spending 11) increase in the money supply 12) increase in aggregate demand. These are the factors that were working to cause a high rate of economic growth between 1947 and 1975. Having to pay high taxes is an assault on saving and investment and slows down economic growth. So, between 1947 and 1975, if taxes had been lower, economic growth would have been even greater than it was.

You have pointed out an oft-overlooked fact about being the only developed country with an economy not devastated by WW2. I’m always surprised by those who proclaim themselves as being the superior intelligence due to their worldview but can’t connect to basic history. Krugman is a prime suspect in this fallacy, IMO.

20
posted on 11/19/2012 9:18:02 AM PST
by T-Bird45
(It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)

The patently sophomoric tripe “Dr” Krugman aside, just go take a look at the comments on that assrag!

It is a disgustingly putrid rehash of the most inane and foolish comments not born of ANY experience in the matter or in its history. Urbane, articulate idiots more interested in kissing this poofter’s ass than making sense.

I’ll tell you what, the next time NYC gets bashed, nuked, disastered, etc. you won’t find me crying one bit. It doesn’t exist for me.

Higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy will not lead to higher tax revenues as the GDP will shrink accordingly.

Except that GDP has been lowering as marginal income tax rates get lower and conversely historically higher GDP growth eras have typically also been higher marginal income tax rate areas (see this CRS report).

I propose an Idiot Tax. Using a rate of 50 % on every failed liberal idea, I propose to wipe out our current National Debt and extablish a 6 trillion dollar surplus within the first 48 hours of my new tax’s implementation.

Krugman et al believe that US tax policy in the 50s and 60s created the post-war boom in America. They seem to forget that the war caused the post-war boom. When your major industrial competitors have been bombed to rubble competition is pretty easy.

While Krugman was reminiscing with pleasure over the high taxes in the 1950s, I sensed a bit of irony in that liberals usually love to say, "It's 2012, not 1950," when it comes to moral issues. However, Krugman threw this in, ensuring he made clear his opposition to the morals of the 1950s:

There are, lets face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, Are you now or have you ever been? The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.

Hahahahahaha! Morally better?

There are 1.3 million unborn children aborted a year. The group that does the bulk of these is funded by taxpayer dollars, and they teach a graphic sex ed program to kids in schools. Forty percent of the children in this country are born out of wedlock. Some put the divorce rate as high as 50%. People want to redefine marriage, adopt children to gay couples, and teach the gay lifestyle to kids in schools. America has a multibillion dollar porn industry. America has a growing STD rate. The advent of computer and phone technology has enabled more hookups, adultery, and easy access to porn than ever before. Reality TV is filled with desperate, attention seeking people who are getting paid to act a fool. The Billboard charts are full of songs with foul language, sex, disrespect of women, etc. Even scripted movies and TV is filled is filled with cheap sex jokes, foul langauge, and violence because it's easier for the writers to do that than write an intelligent script, and the masses lap it up. We campaign against bullying, but yet we hear about suicides of bullied kids frequently. Adding to that, go on the internet, say something the oh so tolerant left disagrees with, and you'll see how against bullying they are. God is being continually kicked out of the public square. People are ridiculed for conservative Christian beliefs. Conservative Muslims get know heat for being conservative, though, even though they are much more conservative. Secular humanism and moral relativity are the religion of the masses. Now churches are being forced to fund birth control against their beliefs.

Things are getting better? Maybe to Krugman this is progress, and things are getting better, and that's just sad.

"Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, thats right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.